ILikePie5

But the other three, I'll accept. I guess where I'm headed is, do you think there is a compromise somewhere?

Or instead of banning trans-women outright it could be a case by case basis based on the individual?

The significance of those inherent advantages will vary depending on the sport, and the other advantages the trans player in question lacks.

Say there is a trans-woman basketball player who is skilled and she has those three advantages listed above. But she's short. She's 5'6. The average WNBA player is 6'0. Does that handicap create a balance for her  that makes her a fair teammate/opponent?

I would say that it could. And that's just one example, there's many different scenarios where a balance can be found. 

ESTABLISHMENT[noun]: the ruling class or authority group in a society; especially, an entrenched authority dedicated to preserving the status quo. 

Wow.  Second generation minority immigrant who went to Clemson worked her way up managing trash collectors and laundromats and you call her establishment?  

Perhaps the GOP doesn't know what that word means anymore.

If Men are more superior in strength and... brain structure, then what would Women be superior at?

Though, I don't know what to do with intersex people.

If I was choosing a candidate for the GOP, I'd be running Nikki Haley- she has proved to be a really smart politician- she plays the middle but with a very adroit touch and demonstrates a strong understanding of the American mission. She's got none of that establishment taint and she knows how to win in the South.   I'm skeptical that the Republican party is capable of nominating anything other than a white man for president but I'd like to proven wrong on that point.

According to who?

NC is every bit as bad as Maryland and probably worse, but more importantly, Republicans have the rest. Republicans will draw 187 congressional districts to Democrats 75 in large part due to large blue states who actually believe in drawing fair congressional districts.

Why not?  What is lacking in appeal to the Rust Belt?

I thought ballot harvesting was a right wing conspiracy? Fraud can't possibly happen said CNN.

I trust authority why don't you Komrade?

Do you have any resources I could look at that would explain the significance of the advantages of bone structure when paired with the effects of HRT?

Vete a la mierda perrita

However, my students began complaining that I end class early, even after they stated they have no questions. It feels unnatural to force something in those last 5 minutes just so they get “their full money worth”. Are these students unreasonable in asking for their 5 minutes?

I have the 2nd most number of friends on this site; I got connections.  The only one that is ahead of me is my old account.  What experience do you have except for claiming yourself as president?

This reminds me of when I watch a baseball game and the announcer will try to make something mundane sound amazing; “this is the first time in 50 years that a Hispanic player has hit 2 home runs both batting lefty in Yankee stadium as a visitor”. Like what?

“So it’s not the seat being filled in an election year, those don’t count, it has to be a vacancy created in an election year.

“And we must hold it open because we say the people should decide”

“But of it’s our guy in the White House, then we need to decide”

There is no rational defense of this, so pointing to precedent is ridiculous. Precedent is not law, if you don’t agree with it you don’t follow it. How many precedents has Donald Trump tossed in the trash? Somehow I suspect if I search through your comments I will find no criticism of him for not releasing his tax returns.

The reason precedents do matter is because they set the tone for how things are *expected* to go moving forward. You can’t legislate everything. So a precedent that says presidential candidates release their tax returns becomes a norm, voters expect to see it. SC decisions become precedents within our society because we expect future rulings will reflect them, which in turn impacts how people proceed. There was no expectation set here. Using the 1800’s as an excuse is just wholly dishonest, it was a long dead and forgotten precedent resurrected for nothing more than political purposes.

This reminds me what Ramshutu was talking about; the period where talking points are thrown at the wall until one sticks. When republicans like Lindsay Graham were asked what they would do in 2020 if a vacancy opened none of them were talking about this.

If republican voters were polled in 2019 I bet less than 0.1% of them could have quoted the historical precedent you’re now citing but we both know a majority would have supported it anyway, certainly no one on the left believed republicans actually believed the arguments they made in 2016.

I’m also willing to bet you were on board with this well before you knew anything about this “past precedent” you now cite, you were just waiting for them to spoon feed you your justification.

I would respect you if you just came out and said “yeah that was f*ucked up, but hey that’s the game”. But you don’t, you instead pretend you believe this garbage because you know if you admit to that you no longer have justification for your fake outrage about what democrats are trying to do.

Yes, the suburbs is definitely a big part of it, but they've been blue for a decade - so the new purple is not just suburbs - its also rural. 

Larger states, by definition, have more people. The entire concept of democracy is that the most votes wins. Calling the election “rigged in favor of the larger states” is nonsensical.

As far as your CA vs WY example, CA has 53 seats to WY’s 1, but CA still has 70x WY’s population, so if you live in WY your vote still counts for more than if you live in CA. *That* is the point of this whole conversation. What we do about it or whether we even should is an entirely different question I haven’t even started on. I know it’s convenient for you to just label and attack everything I say as the product of a constitution hating liberal hack, but at that point you are arguing with yourself.

The 60 seat majority didn’t come from one election, it began in 06 when it became clear that the Iraq war was a complete waste and the country was ready for a sea change.

I’m talking about the senate today and its prospects for the foreseeable future. If the republicans were doing anything with their majorities besides denying every democratic court seat while jamming through every republican one this wouldn’t be a major topic.

Nonsense. The 23rd amendment grants DC three electoral college votes. Nothing about that prohibits DC from becoming a state.

Overthrowing the balance of power? What?

Same thing with PR? What?

I have yet in this conversation to talk about what I want other than for you to admit that republicans have nothing without the fact that their votes count more, and that the left is right to be pissed about that considering that the right’s only serious agenda item right now seems to be stopping the left from voting.

Then you oppose Mitch McConnell’s hypocrisy in his handling of SC picks? No, of course you don’t.

Actually, my only job is to point out how weak your argument is given that you have to go back almost 2 centuries to find a comparable example that fits your Cherry picked narrative.

The fact that the senate and presidency were controlled by different parties was a justification not one republican gave in 2016 when they refused to hold a vote on Garland. All of a sudden in 2020 it’s their main argument. It’s beyond obvious what this is about.

It’s also just a terrible argument. The conversation here is about how what republicans did was wrong. “Because we can” is not a valid defense.

Oh and BTW, Reagan’s pick (Kennedy) was approved 97-0 in 88 (an election year) by a majority democratic senate.

I’m not arguing for anything, but in defense of those who are, all democrats are doing (or trying to do) is respond to what republicans have done.

Oh it is - however I don't base my conclusions on my immediate experiences. 

I agree the establishment of both parties are friendly and both hate Trump, but saying we can't trust anyone but Trump supporters to prove Trump's claims are correct creates a ridiculous standard. 

I'm also a Texas, who lives in a rural community, cool bud. 

Joe Biden won by 7 million votes, yet 45k votes in 3 states would have given Trump the election. Hillary won by 3 million votes and lost the EC. Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections yet have held the White House for the same number of years as republicans. This isn’t complicated, please stop projecting.

Rigged towards the larger states? Do you understand how nonsensical that is?

My problem is that the system has become disconnected from the American people. No one complained about the senate in 2008 because the 60 seat majority was a reflection of where the country was at that time. The current senate makeup is not.

And for the umpteenth time since you keep ignoring this point… I’m not arguing in favor of any specific solution to this. My issue is two fold; first is the fact that people like you pretend there is nothing wrong with this. “Look it’s what the founders intended”. Yeah the founders also designated black people as 3/5ths of a person. It turns out not everything they came up with were good ideas, and the bad ideas have been changed over time because *that* is the greatest single feature of the constitution… the ability to change what is no longer appropriate for the times. A concept you completely disregard.

The second issue is that people like you point to the constitution as if anything within it is great by definition, but when the democrats use it for their advantage you lose your shit. Look at the right wing freak out over statehood for DC and PR, or adding more justices. You guys act like we’re the ones trying to rig the election process because we’re trying to level the playing field. That’s absurd.

I’m well aware of how old gerrymandering is. I brought it up because it’s a clear example of how democrats have demonstrated far greater value of election fairness, and makes clear that republicans are not winning the House because of their ideas.

You do know the civil war took place in the 1860’s right?

Nonsense. You see only what benefits you, and right now that’s the constitution. It really saiys a lot about your position that you cannot come up with one argument to say that any of this is right, all you can do is argue that you have the right. Big difference. Like I said and you ignored, republicans would never stand for this of the roles were reversed.

Coming from someone who supports Trump… wow, what a joke.

Do you think that Texas is Red? It's purple, Rural is being more and more blue - maybe 10 or 5 years ago you'd be right - but not today. 

I never said the constitution was rigged, I said the US election process is rigged. And it is. That’s a fact.

The question at hand here is whether that is a problem. I think it is, you think it’s not. The reason for our differences is because I’m looking towards our future, your looking towards our past. So which side is more legitimate?

This isn’t a difficult question to answer. Just imagine if the roles were flipped. I mean seriously, tell me what republicans would do if they won the popular vote but lost the election, got more senate and House votes yet we’re in the minority in both. There is no world in which that happens and republicans don’t toss the constitution in the shredder. And how obvious is it that you would support it? Because you already admitted that valuing election fairness over power = incompetence.

But what about democrats? Aren’t they just taking the side that’s convenient for them? Well, maybe. But don’t we have proof that they actually value fairness? Yes, that’s why republicans gave the advantage in the house.

You’re wrong here, and I think you know that.

Um.... most liberals don't associate negative things with the devil (that's a conservative thing bud) - furthermore.... no - that would be average capacity for learning - and liberals are a lot better at that than conservatives... so.....

Can you provide a single fact to back up that statement? No, of course you can’t.

At the time of the compromise the disparity between the largest vs smallest state was 12:1. Today that disparity is 70:1. I highly doubt the compromise would have been made under today’s circumstances. But that’s hardly relevant, I’m not advocating for abolishing the current senate makeup.

The system is rigged for the right in every way. The senate is constitutionally gerrymandered for republicans.

The electoral college gives rural voters a louder voice in who becomes president than urban voters.

And republicans will draw the lines for 187 congressional districts this year vs 75 for democrats. Why? Because Democratic states like NY and CA had the brilliant idea to create bipartisan  redistricting committees.

Even the Supreme Court now has a 6-3 conservative majority. Why? Because the senate, controlled by republicans despite the democrats getting more votes, decided that rules restricting SC seats only apply to democrats.

What I really want is just for you to admit:

A) That Republican Party can only win elections because the system is rigged in their favor, and

B) That it’s the right, not the left, that are actually pulling the power grabs here. The constant allegations of the left cheating is simply projection. The left has shown clearly that it values equality, the right has shown that they value anything that gives them the advantage.

Their agenda is to ensure every American has access to the polls, and that every American is represented. Please explain to me how that’s a bad thing, and also, if this is really how you see it, don’t you think it’s a problem for your party that more Americans voting and every American’s vote being counted equally would result in them being indefinitely out of power?

When America was founded the only people who were allowed to vote were white male property owners, and senators were chosen by the governors. Change doesn’t stop a country from being a country. I do agree with you though that it would get really ugly if something like that were enacted, it turns out that when you have gotten used to being overrepresented, equality feels a lot like oppression.

Yes, because the average american, from either side, is totally capable enough to use it militarily in a war. (The answer is no - no they aren't) - you are quite literally more likely to shoot yourself or one of your allies than you are an enemy as a civilian regardless of politics. 

I mean.... assuming that there is a civil war - perhaps the side that won last time? The unradicalists that is.